Parties afraid to upset middle-class voters over college fees
Strange as it may seem, the guardians of the Cosgrave/O'Higgins flame, Ireland's new Labour Social Democrats, the right wingers of the Progressive Democrats, and even the leader of the country's only socialist party, are all jumping to the defence of the wealthiest sectors of Irish society and their supposed right to send their children to college free of charge. The extent of cross-party opposition to the return of these fees could be because it would be wrong but maybe it is just because all these parties are afraid to upset their middle-class support.
Ironically, it is left to Fianna Fáil, or at least pockets on the left wing of Fianna Fáil, to argue the case for real steps to be taken to advance the cause of access to third-level education for the children of lower middle class, working class and welfare recipient families.
The position of Joe Higgins is curious to say the least. An avowed marxist, Higgins has nonetheless traded well on middle-class support. He has some base in disadvantaged parts of his sprawling Dublin West constituency. However, Higgins also relies on the support of many in the Castleknock and Blanchardstown middle classes who benefited from his opposition, firstly to water charges and then to bin charges, but rest secure in the knowledge that Higgins's hard left ideas on taxation are never likely to see the light of the Cabinet table. Fingal County Council have developed a sophisticated set of exceptions for those on lower incomes from both of these charges. The Higgins battle, therefore, was essentially a fight in the interest of the middle classes.
It is interesting to contrast Higgins's stance on third-level fees with that of the two Fianna Fáil deputies for Dublin South Central. Michael Mulcahy and Sean Ardagh both came out on national television on Tuesday night in favour of the re-introduction of third-level fees. The fact that Mulcahy and Ardagh genuinely rely on the support of voters in some of Dublin's most educationally disadvantaged areas might explain the difference between their stance and that of Joe Higgins.
The Progressive Democrat stance is the most predictable, but the reasons they have advanced for their opposition are the strangest of all.
The main PD argument against these fees is that the cost of college should be recouped from the wealthy through the taxation system. However, they are not in favour of increasing taxes even on the wealthy. One could respect the PD argument that educational opportunity should be paid for through taxation if they had the courage like their sister party, the Liberal Democrats in Britain to suggest an extra 1% on the tax rate specifically to fund education.
The PD Cork senator, John Minihan, alleged on Tuesday that charging the wealthy for third-level fees would be comparable to charging the wealthy more for their television licences. The comparison is absurd in the extreme.
Everybody has access to at least one television, only the few have access to third-level college. The cost of the television licence is minuscule in comparison to the cost of providing third-level education. Many on lower incomes are in fact excluded from having to pay the television licence. If the wealthy want more than a basic telly they are charged extra, though additional VAT for their hi-tech widescreen TVs.
A look at the Progressive Democrats' manifesto for last year's election is instructive. Of course it has a section devoted to education, and of course there is much talk of how education "opens opportunity".
However, the party identifies only two proposals for improving access. One is a very specific and limited proposal; the other is a general and vague one.
The first is the Donogh O'Malley scholarship, which the party promised would be available for children in the country's 25 most disadvantaged urban areas.
According to the manifesto, "the O'Malley Scholarship will be aimed at providing additional help for students and their families who have a special ability, but not the economic means to pursue third level studies successfully".
Students of medium ability apparently won't qualify. Interestingly, this commitment to the O'Malley scholarship scheme survived into the programme for government with Fianna Fáil but I haven't heard anything about it since. There would want to be a large scholarship fund if this is to be the answer to the problem of educational disadvantage.
The second PD commitment appears under the heading of student grant reforms. The eight sentences underneath promise "adequate third level maintenance grants", and promise that the means-test threshold will be "increased in real terms" and that they will "take account of the real living costs of students". Apart from a promise to "continue consultation with students representative bodies" there is no suggestion in the manifesto about how this it to be achieved or funded.
By comparison, Noel Dempsey has ordered a comprehensive overview of third-level grants and funding.
The Progressive Democrat position shows no understanding of the genuine struggle faced by many families on lower middle and working-class incomes so that their child might get the chance to go to college. This struggle is particularly acute for families in provincial areas whose children have to live away from home. The struggle is too much for many families from certain postal districts in Dublin.
The Progressive Democrats don't have any empathy with the thousands of manual, service industry and public sector workers who will work whatever overtime is available and forego the one holiday they could otherwise afford in order to see their children through college. These are the families crying out for an increase in the maintenance grant and other educational supports in order to enable their children to go to college, but these voters are not in the PDs' niche.
I have a sense that this debate about the funding of third-level education is drawing to a close. Ultimately, I can't help but think that Noel Dempsey won't get his way. Talking to a lot of Fianna Fáil backbenchers in recent days, they are all in realpolitik mode. They view Noel Dempsey as right in principle but wrong in politics. They fear that the Government, which has taken a hammering since the election, could further undermine its public support with third-level fees. I would argue that a bit of leadership on an issue of central importance to how we structure our society might redeem the Government with large sectors of the electorate. There is little evidence, however, that Bertie Ahern, or the bulk of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, is in a humour to take a gamble like that.
What Noel Dempsey is suggesting could unlock up to a quarter of a billion euro in funds, which he is committed to targeting at tackling educational disadvantage at primary, secondary and third level. Everyone is in favour of increasing access and equality in third-level education, that's easy, but only Noel Dempsey has offered any real suggestions about how the funding can be provided to achieve it.
This debate has shown that when it comes to implementing a policy which might prove unpopular with some sectors of the electorate, the political parties at both ends of the political spectrum are likely to let electoral cowardice overpower ideological belief.
